CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ10296423
Regular
Jan 30, 2020

SEYED NAVID MOUSAVIRAD vs. LAFAYETTE PARK HOTEL AND SPA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the original decision finding no violation of Labor Code section 132a. The applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because there was no evidence the employer knew about a work-related injury or the intent to file a claim. The applicant was on medical leave for an unrelated condition and terminated after exhausting that leave. The Board clarified that the applicant takes nothing on his claim, rather than it being dismissed on procedural grounds.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationretaliationworkers' compensation claimprima facie caselegal rightemployer dutyindustrial injuryadverse consequencesmedical leave
References
Case No. ADJ3821690
Regular
Dec 14, 2009

MONICA RAMIREZ vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY

Reconsideration granted; temporary disability affirmed from 8/20/2007, excluding pregnancy leave.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardTemporary DisabilityPregnancy LeaveQualified Medical Examiner (QME)Substantial EvidencePrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 5313Medical Opinion
References
Case No. ADJ6719136
Regular
Apr 01, 2011

RICHARD KITE vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT

This case concerns Richard Kite's claim for workers' compensation for a hip injury sustained while employed by East Bay Municipal Utility District. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reconsidered an order mandating the employer restore applicant's sick and vacation leave at a higher rate tied to his later earnings. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to justify using the increased earnings for calculating leave restoration, as per *Grossmont Hospital v. WCAB*. Therefore, the WCAB amended the order to restore leave at the rate of $668.93 per week, based on the applicant's earnings at the time of the initial injury.

Petition for ReconsiderationTemporary Total DisabilityTD RateSick LeaveVacation LeaveEmployment Development DepartmentEDDWCJFindings of FactLabor Code
References
Case No. ADJ4639392 (SDO 0292761)
Regular
Aug 31, 2010

LISA FOWLER vs. AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that Automobile Club of Southern California discriminated against Lisa Fowler under Labor Code section 132a. The Board found Fowler failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination because her termination resulted from her failure to return to work after being released by her physician, in accordance with a uniformly applied company attendance policy. The employer's witness testified that work-related and non-work-related leaves were treated the same. Therefore, Fowler was not singled out for disadvantageous treatment compared to similarly situated employees.

Labor Code 132aDiscriminationReinstatementLost WagesWork BenefitsPrima Facie CaseAttendance PolicyUniformly AppliedTemporary DisabilityPermanent and Stationary
References
Case No. ADJ7026270
Regular
Dec 13, 2010

NORRIS COOPER vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED RESOURCES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the employer's petition for reconsideration regarding applicant Norris Cooper's temporary disability indemnity rate. The Board affirmed the WCJ's finding that Cooper was entitled to temporary disability at two-thirds of his average weekly earnings ($1,356.06), resulting in a rate of $904.04 per week. The Board found that Education Code sections 44043 and 45192 coordinate leave benefits with temporary disability to maintain full pay but do not limit the actual temporary disability rate itself. Therefore, Cooper's entitlement to temporary disability was not restricted to his base salary.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardOakland Unified School DistrictJT2 Integrated ResourcesPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityLabor Code section 4453Education Code section 44043Classified EmployeeAverage Weekly EarningsBase Salary
References
Case No. ADJ8961636, ADJ8961637, ADJ8961639
Regular
Mar 21, 2016

ROBERT ORTEGA vs. CITY OF GUADALUPE, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The defendant sought credit for paid administrative leave (ADL) against temporary disability benefits, arguing the applicant was temporarily totally disabled. However, the Board found that ADL constitutes earned wages, not disability payments, as the applicant was essentially working. Since the defendant failed to prove the applicant was medically unable to work during the ADL period, they could not convert those wages into a credit for disability payments.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPaid Administrative LeaveTemporary DisabilityCreditAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4657Police OfficerIndustrial InjuryBurden of ProofPetition for Reconsideration
References
Case No. ADJ1 646469
Regular
Feb 06, 2017

ANDREW HERNANDEZ vs. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL

This case concerns a California Highway Patrol officer who sustained a work-related injury and was temporarily disabled. The Appeals Board initially ruled against the officer's claim for additional compensation, finding he received full salary and that reimbursement for accrued paid leave was outside WCAB jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal annulled this decision, holding that using accrued leave to supplement disability pay constituted a "loss of salary" prohibited by Labor Code section 4800.5. Consequently, the Appeals Board affirmed the original WCJ's award, directing the officer receive compensation for used annual leave, plus interest and penalties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Highway PatrolOpinion and Decision After RemittiturLabor Code section 4800.5Temporary DisabilityFindings and AwardPaid Leave TimeLoss of SalaryJurisdictionPenalties
References
Case No. OAK 301894 OAK 314306
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ROXANNE HENDRIX vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an employee terminated due to exhausting paid leave after an industrial injury, which she alleged was discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer acted in accordance with Education Code section 45192. This specific education code provision, which mandates placing employees who exhaust leave on a reemployment list, supersedes the general anti-discrimination provisions of section 132a in this context.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurycustodianterminationpaid leavetemporary disabilityreemployment listEducation Code section 45192
References
Case No. ADJ3474065 (SFO 0502322)
Regular
Jun 29, 2011

LINDA R. CARDOZO vs. SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, PSI, Administered By TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The applicant sought reconsideration of the denial of temporary disability and salary continuation benefits for a period of personal leave. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the WCJ's report which found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof. Specifically, the applicant lacked medical evidence establishing temporary disability during her leave, and the Agreed Medical Evaluator did not opine on disability for that specific period. Furthermore, the request to re-open discovery for supplemental medical opinions was denied due to lack of good cause and prior notice of the dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationSan Francisco Unified School DistrictTristar Risk Managementtemporary disabilitysalary continuationleave of absenceAgreed Medical EvaluatorDr. Allan Kippermandiscovery
References
Case No. OAK 273736, OAK 284934, OAK 331633
Regular
Apr 04, 2008

PAULETTE JOHNSON vs. SAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied BART's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that BART violated Labor Code Section 132a. The Appeals Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's report, which determined BART unlawfully placed the applicant on administrative leave due to her assertion of legal rights in her workers' compensation case, not due to legitimate business necessity or medical restrictions. Specifically, BART waited over a year after an agreed medical examiner noted the applicant's inability to climb before placing her on leave, despite no medical opinion prior to the favorable award indicating she could not perform her usual duties.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 132aAdministrative LeaveAgreed Medical ExaminerPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTrain OperatorCumulative TraumaLumbar SpineCervical Spine
References
Showing 1-10 of 133 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational